Yes obama! Do the no fly zone

[pocketfullofshells]

Take their country back? They have already been all but defeated. At best, unless we get more involved, all this will do is ensure comtinued stalemate.

the government called for a cease fire today...so they must not think they can win anymore...unless the are just hoping for PR before they attack again.

 

[Dr.Who]

Take their country back? They have already been all but defeated. At best, unless we get more involved, all this will do is ensure comtinued stalemate.

Who defeated them? Was the sovereign country of Libya defeated by a country that declared war on them according to Geneva conventions? Or was their a concerted effort by a number of countries of the world to orchestrate the end of the present Libyan government which they previously recognized as the lawful government of Libya? This sets a bad precedent. No one is complaining now while the evil government of Libya is being dismantled but what if a group of countries that were unfriendly to us decided to orchestrate our governments end?

Is this what it means to be a member of the UN? That the other members can plan your demise by vote?

 

[BigRob]

the government called for a cease fire today...so they must not think they can win anymore...unless the are just hoping for PR before they attack again.

That move was met with a lot of skepticism....personally I think it is a political move by Libya to take away the necessity for a no-fly zone, turn world attention elsewhere, and then they can keep on doing whatever they want.

If you use Iraq as an example, Saddam was able to cling to power and basically do as he pleased while he "cooperated" with the UN.

 

[BigRob]

Who defeated them? Was the sovereign country of Libya defeated by a country that declared war on them according to Geneva conventions? Or was their a concerted effort by a number of countries of the world to orchestrate the end of the present Libyan government which they previously recognized as the lawful government of Libya? This sets a bad precedent. No one is complaining now while the evil government of Libya is being dismantled but what if a group of countries that were unfriendly to us decided to orchestrate our governments end?

Is this what it means to be a member of the UN? That the other members can plan your demise by vote?

I think you misunderstand my position..I don't want to get involved in Libya at all. I only want to get involved where we can pursue American interests and where we gain some large benefits.

In Libya, we seem to really be only intervening due to a humanitarian interest...I think that is a bad idea.


The point in the above statement was simply to say that the rebels have been defeated to the point where the Libyan government will survive them, and a no-fly zone might frankly be too little too late for those who wanted to get involved earlier.

 

[nobull]

what does china want ? They would have to pay for it.

lol..lol

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That move was met with a lot of skepticism....personally I think it is a political move by Libya to take away the necessity for a no-fly zone, turn world attention elsewhere, and then they can keep on doing whatever they want.

If you use Iraq as an example, Saddam was able to cling to power and basically do as he pleased while he "cooperated" with the UN.

Not realy, he was basically powerless in the north with the no fly zone..the Kurds basically had been running there own nation for some time..they got so use to it and enjoyed such a better life with the no fly...they found it easer to live with there own "nation" within a nation and gave up the idea of fighting Saddam after the US twice made it clear we would not help them, even if we said we would.

 

[RoccoR]

pocketfullofshells, et al,

Using the right tool for the right job.

Not realy, he was basically powerless in the north with the no fly zone..the Kurds basically had been running there own nation for some time..they got so use to it and enjoyed such a better life with the no fly...they found it easer to live with there own "nation" within a nation and gave up the idea of fighting Saddam after the US twice made it clear we would not help them, even if we said we would.

(COMMENT)

Let's understand what we are doing before we praise the decision to enforce a "no fly zone." Let's ask the hard questions and look at the consequences.

• What happens, even with a "no fly zone," if COL Muammar al-Gaddafi succeeds, and crushes the rebellion and we (or slected EU Folks) are left holding the bag on a loser?
  
• Is this about "Regime Change" or "democracy?" What happens if COL Muammar al-Gaddafi is defeated, but a much more harsh dictatorial government ends-up taking control?
  
• What happens if the consequence of the intervention results in a fractured country, one side (Gaddafi's) with oil and one side without?

At the end of the day, what we are advocating is the demise of COL Muammar al-Gaddafi and his son. They are taken out of the picture. What questions does that suggest?

• Do we just do a massive air strike and kill them?
  
• If we don't kill them, what should their disposition be? Should we facilitate and exsile? Should we place them in custody? Should we turn them over to a disgruntled mob of anti-government protesters?
  
• If we fail, who is going to take care of the refugee traffic? Who pays?

I don't trust the US National Security Decision Making Process, that made so many - many good and righteous decisions pertaining to Iraq, and Afghanistan, to make a sound and valid assessment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you misunderstand my position..I don't want to get involved in Libya at all. I only want to get involved where we can pursue American interests and where we gain some large benefits.

In Libya, we seem to really be only intervening due to a humanitarian interest...I think that is a bad idea.


The point in the above statement was simply to say that the rebels have been defeated to the point where the Libyan government will survive them, and a no-fly zone might frankly be too little too late for those who wanted to get involved earlier.

I apologize for making it seem like I was criticizing your position (though in the spirit of intellectual pursuit I and we do it all the time here). This time I was merely making a comment starting from what you said.

 

[BigRob]

Not realy, he was basically powerless in the north with the no fly zone..the Kurds basically had been running there own nation for some time..they got so use to it and enjoyed such a better life with the no fly...they found it easer to live with there own "nation" within a nation and gave up the idea of fighting Saddam after the US twice made it clear we would not help them, even if we said we would.

Keep in mind this is all after we sat idly by and watched him slaughter roughly 30,000 people in an uprising....

After that we established a no-fly zone and spent a decade enforcing it, and the only big accomplishment that came out of that was one of the largest opposition groups to Saddam lost the will to remove him from power...something we then started a war to do, and have been stuck in Iraq an additional decade.

Is this the model we want to follow in Libya? Once we are involved in Libya, there will always be reasons we cannot disengage.

 

[BigRob]

I apologize for making it seem like I was criticizing your position (though in the spirit of intellectual pursuit I and we do it all the time here). This time I was merely making a comment starting from what you said.

Criticize away, I can take it.

My point is just that I don't think we should be getting involved in enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya. I don't think we have anything to gain from it.